Canada's 12th Naturopathic Medicine Week via Pincott-the-Vitalist!

here, I quote from the regular column authored by ND Pincott published at Canada's North Island Midweek mentioning this week's Naturopathic Medicine Week [see 001., below]; then, I visit the ND's own web page to point out 'the essentially naturopathic vitalistic' [see 002., below]; finally, I quote from a 2009 article by the same ND in the same publication that claims naturopathy is 'the same science' [see 003., below]:

001. Pincott, I. (ND NCNM 1984) states in the North Island Midweek's "Acceptance of Naturopathic Physicians Keeps Growing" [vsc 2010-05-03]:

"this year marks the 12th year that Naturopathic Medicine Week (NMW) has been proclaimed in Canada! This is an annual awareness initiative to educate the public [...] naturopathic physicians (NDs) are primary health care providers with 7-8 years post secondary education who practice safe, effective, science-based natural health care [...] across Canada there are more than 1,500 registered NDs and in B.C. there are 328 practicing NDs and last year there were 45 new licenses granted [...] there are two schools in Canada: Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (Toronto) and Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine (Vancouver). CAND is the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors and is recognized as a stakeholder with the federal government participating in consultations on scientific panels and expert advisory committees [...] it is the role of the ND as educator to sift the wheat from the chaff when the media paint a negative view of natural therapies [...] naturopathic medicine week is to help educate the public about the extensive expertise of naturopathic physicians in their role of promoting health and preventing disease for the citizens of Canada, using safe and effective therapies. Dr. Pincott, naturopathic physician, welcomes you to drop into her Campbell River office[...] for more information call 250-286-3655 or visit www.DrPincott.com."

Note: wow, that huge "science" claim!  It must be great to have free license to engage in commerce under false pretenses.  So, these experts label naturopathy science, yet, what I cite in 002. refutes NDs' science-expertise claims.

002. the vitalism of ND Pincott is evident in her "Dr. Ingrid Pincott, N.D." page [vsc 2010-05-03]:

"Dr. Pincott [...attended] the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon [...] naturopathic medicine [...includes] homeopathy [...] and detoxification programs [...] Dr. Pincott believes [quite literally, this is a belief as opposed to a scientific fact] that in most cases, the body has an inner ability to heal itself when obstacles to cure are removed and therapies are given that stimulate the vital force (the healing force of the body) [explicit vitalism...] naturopathic principles: 1. the healing power of nature [that vitalism, coded]."

Note: ah, that essential, science-ejected, sectarian premise / belief known as vitalism.  The presence of homeopathy should send up sirens alone!  And detoxification!  What naturopathy has done is turn the healing ability of the body into a purposeful-life-spirit controlled 'magical-superstition imbued' phenomenon THAT IT AIN'T!  For the full NCNM vitalism-as-science nonsense, see here.

003. the science-ejected philosophy overarching / behind / contextualizing naturopathy is quite evident in ND Pincott's "Bargaining for the Right Prescription" [vsc 2010-05-03] in the North Island Weekender (2009-03-18): 

"the scientific education and training that naturopathic physicians receive is no different than the scientific training medical doctors receive. It is the philosophy behind the application of that science that differentiates NDs and MDs."

Note: man, oh man.  So, 'our science is no different so we call ourselves science, except for the nonscientific context we place all our science within, so we're still science even though the context of it all is a science-ejected or -unsupported philosophy / belief system.'

I think naturopathic lunacy keeps grown, instead.  I really appreciate the pseudo-journalism and blatant self-promotion all wrapped up nicely in nonsense / falsehood.

Naturopathy's Pseudoscience & Opacity - Traub in ISBN 0071443371 With Help From AANMC, NCNM, Oregon.gov and TNM

here, I quote from a chapter in a book that was written by ND luminary Traub that I find quite misguiding / false / misinforming [see 001.]; then, I go to the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] for a bio. on Traub [see 002., below]; then, I use web pages from NCNM,Oregon.gov and the Textbook of Natural Medicine to decode and illuminate naturopathy's absurd context [see 003., below]:

001. naturopathic luminary Traub, M. (ND NCNM 1981) states in "Chapter 16: Naturopathic Medicine" from "Integrative Cardiology: Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the Heart" by MDs John Vogel and Mitchell Krucoff (ISBN 0071443371, 2007):

"[this chapter is] an attempt to inform and guide [...] naturopathic medicine [...is] a distinct discipline [...] the intention is to describe the scientific evidence for the naturopathic approach [...] naturopathic medicine [...is] an art, science, philosophy, practice of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of illness [p.303...it is] distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice [...] methods used are consistent with these principles [...principles] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease [...that are] continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] the principles of naturopathic medicine are as follows [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [coded vitalism...] an inherent self-healing process that is ordered and intelligent [coded vitalism and teleology...] this inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism...#3] work with the individual's self-healing process [coded vitalism...] total health also includes spiritual health [supernaturalism...and] personal spiritual development [supernaturalism p.304...] the education of naturopathic physicians is rigorous and demanding [...they are] educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD."

Note: the pages I've cited from above are available for viewing at books.google.com.  Now, this is the typical naturopathic MO: claim 'same graduate doctoral level science' upon 'the essentially naturopathic,' [but, don't transparently / accurately reveal that 'the essentially naturopathic' is in-fact science-ejected!]. I dispute the claim that naturopathy is distinct / distinguished [it disguises, camouflages], that its principles survive scientific scrutiny [the 'essentially naturopathic' ones are quite science-ejected], that within science is the supernatural and science-ejected [that's plainly irrational and absurd, and science-illiterate], and that the basis of naturopathy is science [that is what 'basic science' means; instead, the basis is sectarian dogma / a belief amalgam]. I label naturopathy an opacity and an example of pseudoscience.  The public, comprised of patients and education consumers minimally, deserve to know the truth.  Otherwise, people engage with naturopathy under false premises / contexts: which is unfair trade in terms of commerce / fraud, and unethical / unprofessional in terms of healthcare and education.

002. Traub is 'spotlighted' at the AANMC's page "Alumni Career Spotlight: Michael Traub, ND, DHANP, CCH, FABNO" [vsc 2010-05-02] where:

002.a. AANMC and Traub quite copiously employ the label 'professional / profession:' 

"current professional endeavors [...] other professional achievements [...] he maintains a strong presence in the naturopathic profession [...] a pioneer and a strong influence in the profession [...] the profession [x2...] the naturopathic medical profession [...] a wonderful professional relationship [...] a great time to enter the profession [...] the profession today [...] this is true of most professions, but particularly so in the service/health professions [...] the professional life of a naturopathic doctor."

Note: profession, profession, profession.  But, an actual profession does not engage in deceit / is not based on falsehood / science-illiteracy because its client's welfare would be paramount. Vitalism [coded here] is several decades hugely science-ejected.  The truth should be told: naturopathy is an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.  The opposite of that is: professional and scientific.  Yet Traub, at his own web bio. page [vsc 2010-05-02], states: "he remains a member of the AANP’s Scientific Affairs Committee [...and] in 2006, he was honored by the AANP as 'Physician of the Year.'"  A shining example.

002.b. AANMC and Traub tells us he's:

"a naturopathic doctor (ND), a diplomate of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians (DHANP), a fellow of the American Board of  Naturopathic Oncology (FABNO), and with a Certificate in  Classical Homeopathy (CCH) [...his] areas of focus/specialties [are] naturopathic oncology [...and] homeopathy [...he is a] past president of the AANP [and a] past president of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians."

Note: wow, [not] impressive credentials!  I'm horrified [for life!] that someone [supposedly educated rigorously and scientifically, per NDs' claims!] in this day and age thinks homeopathy works then [I imagine] uses it on those suffering from cancer.  But, those are his credentials as an ND luminary: powerful placebos, scientific nonscience, naturalistic supernaturalism and kind.

002.c. AANMC and Traub speak of:

"[regular medicine as] the allopathic world [...while in naturopathy] a solid embrace of naturopathic medicine principles is needed [...that he's] the first naturopathic physician appointed to the hospital staff of North Hawaii Community Hospital (NHCH) [...where he] successfully advocated for the addition of botanical, nutritional and homeopathic medicines to the hospital’s formulary."

Note:  now, labeling modern medicine allopathy is like labeling modern chemistry alchemy.  It's stupid; it's sectarian in-itself. We see that the principles of naturopathy ARE its standard of care.  Great results: put an ND in a hospital and placebo medicine is dispensed.

003. let's decode, and illuminate [skeptically analyze!].  Traub is an NCNM graduate, so let's see what NCNM and Oregon [which is where NCNM is located] say about naturopathy [and a little bit of TNM]:

003.a. NCNM, Traub's alma mater, states in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-05-02]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [explicit vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [explicit vitalism] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae; therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [explicit vitalism...whereby] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [...whereby] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [...whereby] the physician must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding. The physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [...whereby] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of  'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level [bullshit!], gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels."

Note: so, here is a Rosetta Stone web page that clearly states that naturopathy is based upon the vitalistic and supernatural.  I've mentioned that the vitalistic is in fact science-ejected; and one should keep in mind that the supernatural is not science-supportable.  So, this is completely bogus, cultic and sectarian verbiage: a life force being claimed as 'scientifically in-fact' when in-fact science-ejected decades ago.

003.b. the State of Oregon states in "Oregon.gov: Board of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-02]:

"[ND principle #1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [explicit vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first, do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful process of the organism.  The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [explicit vitalism, teleology] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process.  The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae [...naturopathy's] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [explicit vitalism], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [teleology...this is a] vitalistic tradition of medicine [explicit vitalism...wherein] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...wherein] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual [...wherein] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors." 

Now, that's the belief / sectarian side of things: vitalism, teleology, supernaturalism.  But, overarching all of this is the science claim upon the naturopathic at Oregon.gov per: 

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) [...] are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] a growing body of scientific knowledge validates the naturopathic approach."

Note: yes, that is the State of Oregon stating that science and the science-ejected are the same thing.  This is quite an endorsement of irrationality and absurdity.  How were they so hijacked?  Now there's some deep pockets, and many are due compensation due to this ".gov" misguidance both educationally and clinically.

003.c. AANMC, for kicks too, states quite opaquely in "The 6 Principles" [vsc 2010-05-02]:

"naturopathic medicine celebrates the healing power of nature [...aka] nature’s healing powers [coded vitalism...] it is a dynamic philosophy as well as a profession [professions claim...it views] the body as an integrated whole.  Naturopathic medicine is defined by principles [...] above all, it honors the body’s innate wisdom to heal [coded vitalism...] naturopathic physicians practice the six fundamental principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature. Trust in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself [coded vitalism...#5] treat the whole person.  View the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [supernaturalism]."

Note: so, vitalism is completely coded / opaquely communicated in that description.  And supernaturalism is required.  And 'profession' is the label upon this all.

 

Where is AANMC's science claim?  Well, not on that page, but instead at "Naturopathic Medicine FAQ" [vsc 2010-05-02]:

"[this is] a healing paradigm [model] founded on a rational balance of tradition, science and respect for nature [coded vitalism...our] diagnoses and therapeutics are increasingly supported by scientific evidence [...] naturopathic medical students at accredited ND colleges study the same core medical sciences as MD students [...] prior to admission into a naturopathic medicine program, the typical entering ND student has completed three years of pre-medical training and earned a bachelor of science degree [...] ND students are educated in the same basic sciences [...] as allopathic medical students. Some AANMC-member schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [which is naturopathy's super-science claim...] students are educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD or DO as well as the latest advances in science [...for admission we advise] a basic science foundation [...that you] earn a bachelor’s degree preferably with a pre-medical or other science major [...and we recommend you read] the 'Textbook of Natural Medicine' [...and we're also told] the six fundamental principles of naturopathic medicine are principles adhered to by naturopathic doctors [essential / mandatory / defining!...including #1] the healing power of nature: trust in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself [coded vitalism...#5] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [supernaturalism]."

Note: so, AANMC claims that the figmentation context of naturopathy is scientific. So much science, science, science labeling upon the nonscientific!

The Textbook of Natural Medicine, by the way, clearly lays out naturopathy's vitalism and science-mislabeling MO: “[naturopathy is] science-based natural medicine [p.028...] the vis medicatrix naturae [is] the vital force [which is] the healing power of nature [p.034].”  The TNM is another great Rosetta Stone for understanding naturopathy's opacity.

There are 23 instances of the term 'spirit' in that chapter, and here's the general ND sectarian principle of 'whole person' in terms of supernatural belief:

"though the general purview of the physician is the body, that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it [vitalism, animatism & kind]. If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy [p.035]."  In ND school, we were taught that the vital force was "spirit-like."  In naturopathy, physiology is a result of that spiritual intelligence / HPN / VMN / life force.  That is a sectarian belief set [if ever there was one].  Pizzorno, the huge purveyor of naturopathy as "science based natural medicine" actually in Total Wellness equates spirit and vitalism while stating this has been vetted through "the rigors of the scientific method" [vsc 2010-05-02].  Wow, Nobel Prize for that man.

So, now in naturopathy physician and metaphysician are the same thing!  I've often labeled naturopathy's belief amalgam as: vitalism, spiritism, and teleology.  Also, autoentheism, because when I was in ND school, I was told that that spirit / vital force was 'god power within.'  I've coined / borrowed the term autoentheism to express that belief curtly.

004. overall:

where is an explicit disclosure that naturopathy is based upon science-ejected sectarian-vitalistic-spiritistic figmentation?  Never seen such.  Naturopathy's opacity is as far away from professionalism as vitalism is from science.  There's this huge 'science claim of / requirement toward' with the naturopathic, but when science is appropriately implemented regarding 'the naturopathic,' it is obvious that the essentially naturopathic is exterior to science.

Now, one thing I find appalling is naturopathy's destruction of 'freedom of religion,' which is the right of anyone to believe nor not believe whatever 'articles of faith' they may wish to -- since an 'article of faith' is basically an option / nonobligatory.  Once someone has power over another, say institutionally [ND education, ND medicine] and you falsely convey that what students & patients actually have the right to choose to believe or not is no longer a belief but a scientific fact / obligatory [e.g., naturopathy claiming its vitalism, and certain kinds of supernaturalism, scientific fact], a huge freedom / basic human right has been squashed.

Since when ever before has HIGHER education gotten so LOW?  

Is there any bigger fraud happening in North American higher education right now?

Andy Lewis on Integrative Medicine: Quackery, Pseudo-medicine and Anti-scientific Nonsense

the Quackometer [Andy Lewis] writes in "Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health Closes" (2010-05-01):

"as predicted last week, Prince Charles Charity has closed amid claims of fraud, money laundering and misuse of charity status [...it promoted] quackery, University courses in nonsense and increased use of magic medicine in the NHS [...] the concept of integrated medicine is a trojan horse. Strip away the cosy rhetoric of caring for the 'whole person' and what you find is a payload of quackery, pseudo-medicine and anti-scientific nonsense. The FIH has been notorious for promoting absurd treatments including homeopathy, reiki and acupuncture despite the evidence overwhelming suggesting these are useless treatments [...this] has been a menace to the public understanding of science and its role in healthcare. It will not be missed by all those who care about science, reason and good health."

Note: great news.

CFI's CASS: Naturopathy Unscientific & Dangerous (2010-04-30), and Here's a PEIAND Example:

here, I cite from a Center for Inquiry [CFI] press release which takes a stand [in title only, maybe] against naturopathy [see 001., below]; then I provide an example of naturopathy's MO via the Prince Edward Island Association of Naturopathic Doctors [PEIAND; see 002., below]:

001. CFI states in "Center for Inquiry: Naturopathy Unscientific & Dangerous, Says Canadian Skeptic Society" (2010-04-30)[vsc 2010-04-30]:

"May 3rd to the 9th marks Naturopathic Medicine Week in Canada. The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) believes that when evidence is evaluated scientifically, we find much promise [really!], but few reasons to believe naturopathic treatments [that's quite generous, actually]. Naturopathic interventions include therapeutics like traditional Chinese medicine [and] acupuncture [...and] homeopathy [...there is] 'weak, if any, evidence,' says CASS spokesman Michael Kruse [...and] 'the biggest problem with naturopathy is the lack of a standard of care' [I disagree...] CASS engages scientific claims made in public discourse, addressing misinformation by promoting evidence-based science. CFI -- which runs CASS -- is an educational charity promoting reason, science, secularism, and free inquiry [which is great]."

Note: I'd argue that when you look at naturopathy scientifically, you don't see "promise" you see obfuscation and figmentation.  'Weak evidence' for figmentations and the science-ejected falsely labeled science? Well, that is being quite generous.  When you know the whole naturopathic picture, you see irrationality, unprofessionalism, and outright fraud [clinically, academically etc.].  I would argue that 'pseudoscience without transparency' IS naturopathy's standard of care / MO.  That is not a problem about a uniform 'standard of care.'  That is a problem with lawful commerce and the higher standards of professionalism -- which naturopathy doesn't meet, cannot inherently meet.

002. here's an example of naturopathy's false scientific position:

002.a. naturopathy claims science, professional ethical status:

002.a1. PEIAND states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic doctors can also complement and enhance health care services provided by other health care professionals. They cooperate with other branches of medical science."

Note: obviously, there is a claim here of professional ethical status ['profess' is used three times on the page] and of science [used four times on the page] by naturopathy [used eleven times on the page].  CAND, the mother organization of PEIAND, published a similar claim (here) falsely labeling 'the essentially naturopathic' "science-based natural health care."

002.b. naturopathy claims to be based upon certain things:

002.b1. PEIAND states in "What Can Naturopathy Do For You?" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"it is the approach, philosophy and training of naturopathic doctors that sets it apart from other forms of health care [...] the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB] and to treat the root cause of disease [RCD]."

Note: so, there's philosophy, HPB, and RCD.

002.b2. PEIAND states in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...that are] emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [...and are] the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN=VMN...] the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit [HPBMS] and to prevent further disease from occurring [...] this ordered and intelligent [teleological] healing ability."

Note: so, this is the 'big page' for defining a central premise of naturopathy, HPB.  Obviously, HPN=VMN=HPBMS.  But, the public is not being informed transparently.  I've spent a lot of words on this blog decoding this premise, which is vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological and science-ejected.  The naturalistic language [except for the spiritism-supernaturalism] is a disguise, and therein, naturopathy really isn't interested in patient rights / informed consent.  This is a ruse.

002.c.1. PEIAND states in "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"the naturopathic therapies are all based on the same principles, they all assist the body's healing response [coded vitalism...] homeopathic medicine [...is a] powerful system of medicine [though the remedies are EMPTY!...] homeopathic remedies  [...] when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's 'vital force' and to stimulate the body's innate healing forces [naturopathy's vitalistic context...] traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture.  The key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy. The chi of all organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance [naturopathy's vitalistic context]."

Note:  so, there it is, the vitalism at the heart of the naturopathic.

003. dangerous as fraud, and I can think of more:

when science-ejected figmentations [HPB-vitalisms, supernaturalisms and kind] are falsely labeled as within science and acted upon in a medical context, I seriously doubt that medicine is improved or society benefits.  After all, if a figment is a fact, the RCD that's being supposedly treated by naturopathy is quite suspect, and I'm sure the diagnostics and therapeutics within such a structure of 'epistemic conflation' are quite unreliable / unknown / dangerous therein.

Naturopathy is pure absurdity: an article of faith is a scientific fact, the distinct is the blended, the science-based is the science-ejected...

NCSE Spanks Dr. Larry Dossey (2010-04-26), and the Pseudoscience of Vitalism (1995):

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] response by NCSE to a recent HP post concerning science by Dr. Larry Dossey [see 001., below]; then, I do some archeology and quote from a classic NCSE page that strikes at the heart of naturopathy's belief amalgam -- vitalism [see 002., below]:

001. the National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steve Newton states in "In Defense of Scientific Methodology" (2010-04-26):

"in a recent piece titled 'The Scientific Method: An Educational Train Wreck?' Dr. Larry Dossey made a number of statements so factually inaccurate, so misrepresentative of the nature of science, that it reads like some ill-conceived parody gone awry [...a] rot [...] Dossey accuses scheming educators of trying 'to inculcate children with the scientific method' [...] I plead guilty. There is great value in [...] teaching [...] students about scientific methodology and nature of science [...] students come to the classroom with a host of misconceptions about the world [...] it is the proper job of science educators to help [...] student[s] see the world as it really is, rather than to reinforce their prejudices [hear, hear]. Biology students should learn that the theory of evolution is correct and that vaccines do not cause autism [...] chemistry students should understand why homeopathic claims about 'water memory' are not true. [hear, hear]. Science education can -- and should -- help students understand reality [...] a scientific understanding of the world brings food to the table [...] science has reduced human suffering and needless deaths, and produced longer and better lives [...] the misconception of scientists as cold, remote individuals comes from movies and television, not reality [...] science fiction is a poor basis for characterizing all scientists [...] there is a place for everyone in science [...] Dossey's essay misrepresents science, scientists, educators, and students. It is Dossey, not science, who has jumped the rails."

Note: now THAT is a spanking [verbally, of course].

Another Steve, Novella, in "Dossey on the Scientific Method" (2010-04-27) also spanks Dossey.  Included is this scathing criticism:

"Dossey is in no position to lecture about the deficiencies of the scientific world-view. He disguises his ideological problems with science in borrowed legitimate observations, and mixes them with howling straw men that no scientist would recognize in themselves. The result is not even 'a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship,' because no one would confuse this for scholarship."

PZ Meyers in "Another HuffPo Pontification on Science as It is Not Understood" (2010-04-26) states, in summary:

"he's a credulous magic man."

002. NCSE states in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995): Scientific Integrity" (Board of NABT, 1995-03-15):

"the credibility and utility of science, and therefore biology, depend on maintaining its integrity. NABT has a special obligation, to promote this integrity in life science education. The data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

 Note: seeing NCSE quickly activated in response to the HP Dossey post is quite inspiring.  Seeing that NCSE maintains the NABT 1995 position paper, which trashes naturopathy's supposed scientific position of vitalism, is quite awesome.  What's coolest about the whole thing is that UB established their ND program after that date, and likely didn't even bother to pass their ND contents across the desk of any legitimate science organization for review.  So, from the get-go at UBCNM, naturopathy was falsely labeling the hugely science-ejected [e.g., vitalism, supernaturalism] as "health science."  Here we are, in 2010, and UB still labels vitalism science.  If anything, vitalism is more and more exterior to science.  

So, a higher education institution trades upon false premises, and that is truly morally repugnant.

CFI-Canada's CASS Trashes Homeopathy [yes!]

here, I cite from a recent National Post [Canada] article looking at homeopathy-the-absurdity from the point of view of scientific skepticism:

Mitchell Gerskup, Ryan Gray, Michael Kruse, Iain Martel, and Justin Trottier state in "A Vestige of the 18th Century" (2010-04-20):

"Hahnemann [...invented] homeopathy [...about 1800 and it] still doesn't work [...] Hahnemann termed the contemporary practice of humoral medicine 'allopathy' [...and] he suggested that disease should be treated [...instead with] homeopathy [...wherein] there is none of the original ingredient left in the solution [...it is] a prescientific (or at best protoscientific) point of view [...it is] prescientific thinking [...it is] a lot like magic [...within an] 18th-century quasiscientific context which became outmoded as modern science grew in its proficiency [...it is] archaic [...and upon] the dustbin of science [and therein TRASHED!...it is] based upon the antiquated notion of 'vitalism' (the idea that a life-force, or spirit, dwells within the body and can be manipulated to improve health [...homeopathy and vitalism were] abandoned by physicians and researchers [...along with other methods] based upon vitalism [...from the] 18th and 19th century [...] the National Council Against Health Fraud [...] has stated that 'homeopathy meets the dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult' [...] the authors are members of the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism [CASS] and the Center For Inquiry-Canada [CFI-Canada]."

Note: by extension, this article encompasses naturopathy, since naturopathy requires homeopathy in its educational and board examination processes -- all across North America (AANP, CAND).  And that sectarian system falsely claims homeopathy is a clinical science.  Also, since allopathy was a term for medicine of the mid- to late- 1700s, it is not accurate to call today's medicine allopathy.  That is akin to calling today's chemistry alchemy, or today's astronomy astrology.  But, NDs use that inaccurate label ALL THE TIME.

Vitalism is Paranormal, Immature, and Science-Ejected (ISBN 1405181222, 2009)

Smith, J.C. (PhD{psychology} MSU 1975) writes in "Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit" (ISBN 1405181222, 2009):

"the traditional paranormal explanation is that acupuncture [p.006] frees the flow of a mystical energy, qi (or chi) [p.007...] children [...] in attempting to make sense of the world [...] may erroneously think of objects as possessing consciousness and agency or intentionality [...] eventually children outgrow such simplistic thinking patterns and learn to explain the world more accurately in physical, biological, and psychological terms [...] the idea that objects possess energy and intentionality is called vitalistic causality or vitalism, a type of thinking that also characterizes adult belief in the paranormal. Vitalistic thinking also characterizes early human thought and philosophy [...e.g.] a life-giving soul [...] in the 19th and 20th centuries physiologists proposed a vital force underlying all living things [...aka] life force, vis essentialis, vis viva, entelechy, elan vital, and soul atoms [...] vitalism is clearly a paranormal concept.  There is no evidence of vitalistic energy, much less a thinking energy with intentionality, outside the energies physics has discovered.  Children give up such vitalistic thinking as they mature [...] civilization gave up vitalistic explanations for those based on science [...] vitalism persists in energy treatments of complementary and alternative medicine [p.271]."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy [which places itself within so-called CAM] calls its vitalistic premise "the healing power of nature," per a life force which is "intelligent."  And it labels itself "science-based."  In that sense, naturopathy is absurd, since what is within science and what is exterior to science are equated, and nonscience is falsely labeled science.

AANP's President: There's Supposedly 6000 Licensed NDs in North America

here,  I quote from the AANP President [see 001., below], then I visit his practice web site [see 002., below] and go a'searching for a transparent explanation of the central premise of naturopathy [not provided!]:

001. the American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] President Hangee-Bauer, C. (ND Bastyr 1984, LAc SFCA 1988) states in the AANP blog page "Naturopathic Leaders and Leadership" (2010-04-21)[vsc 2010-04-25]:

"it is currently estimated that there are about 6000 licensed NDs in the United States and Canada."

Note: perhaps that number is accurate. Though, exaggerating it would be beneficial to the ND movement.  Is naturopathy THAT disorganized that they can't count active North American licensees?  I don't think so. Remember, they are claiming professionalism.  In fact, on that blog page, "profess" shows up 8 times.

002. now, a short point I'd like to make about the current AANP President's own web pages describing [supposedly] naturopathy -- you can't get naturopathy's context presented to you in a transparent manner (what's new!):

002.a. Hangee-Bauer ND writes in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession which emphasizes the prevention and treatment of disease, maintenance of optimal health, and promotion of the individual’s inherent self-healing process which naturopathic physicians refer to as the 'vis medicatrix naturae,' the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN...] naturopathic doctors follow six key principles in their practices: [#1] the healing power of nature. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process [ISHP] in each of us which is both ordered and intelligent [teleological!]. NDs act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this self-healing ability [SHC...] NDs study the same basic and clinical sciences as do other medical students."

Note: there's the claim of professionalism, science, and VMN-HPN-ISHP-SHC.  But, nowhere on that page is the actual context of naturopathy transparently communicated - a vitalistic science-ejected figmentation is responsible for sickness and healing.  Instead, you get camouflage, and that is not what science and professionalism do!  Remember, this is the HEAD of the AANP.

002.b. Hangee-Bauer ND writes in "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct [etc....] naturopathic doctors [...] follow six important principles in caring for their patients [...#3] trust in the healing power of nature - the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself. [#4] Treat the whole person - view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [...] both NDs and MDs attend four-year graduate level accredited medical schools, with similar training in the basic sciences such as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pathology [...and we're told NDs are] using scientific methods.[...] according to traditional Chinese medicine theory, acupuncture works by promoting the smooth flow of qi."

Note: so, again that camouflaged vitalism while ironically the ND claims that naturopathic is distinct.  But, you can see that supernaturalism that naturopathy also contains while claiming science-expertise.  Qi, of course, is vitalism and a figmentation.  It is interesting how many NDs are also LAcs - the vitalistic underpinnings of both are quite compatible.

002.c. Hangee-Bauer ND writes in "Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) & Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"TCM is based on the concept of qi (pronounced chee) which is the life force or vital energy. Qi is the animating force that serves to warm us, protect us from external pathogenic factors, promote the functions of the body and hold our organs and tissues in place."

Note: that's vitalism.  Now, qi is on that page 8 times.

002.d. now, I'll bridge all these vitalistic euphemisms from 002.a. and 002.b. with what I may call a "Rosetta Stone" web page from the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine.  UB states in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1" [vsc 2010-04-25] [archived here]:

"the healing power of nature. Viz medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: so, naturopathy is vitalistic.  No matter how it represents itself, which is mainly in an opaque / science-disguised / falsely labeled manner.  

And to quote from the song "For America" by Jackson Browne:

"with everyone from the President on down trying to keep it from you."

Brenders in HP: Demolishing Ullman But Perhaps Epistemic Delineation as Well

Brenders, D. (PhD ?) states in the Huffington Post's "Want to Help Save 34 Billion a Year in Health Care Costs?  Be a Skeptic" (2010-04-23) :

"I am an expert on B.S. -- a teacher of persuasion, an authority on sham arguments. Let's remove the sham arguments from Mr. Ullman's case and see what's left [...there is an] enlightening word: skeptic [...] a skeptic is a person who proportions his/her belief to the evidence [...] a properly skeptical person does not accept just any 'evidence' that matches his/her preconceptions and ignores the rest; evidence must pass certain tests of verity and must be verifiable independently and abundantly. No evidence, no belief [...] the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee['s...] inquiry and report could not have been more reasonable, thorough, even-handed, or damning to the credibility of homeopathy [...] Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacy at UCL put it [succinctly]: 'if homeopathy worked the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned' [read: implausible...] what's left of homeopathy with the sham arguments removed? [...] nothing."

Note: I agree with the 'it's placebo nonsense' verdict per homeopathy, in sum.  But, I have issue with Brenders's choice of the word "belief" to represent 'confidence in facticity' / scientific knowledge.  I classically divide epistemology into that area that is in-evidence / a posteriori [which includes science], and that area that is taken on faith / a priori [religion, dogma].  Belief, in my view, essentially belongs to the second category. So, evidence is antithetical to belief, in that sense.  Or perhaps a better word is irrelevant.  Evidence leads to tentative knowledge premises and degrees of certainty / doubt, while faith / leaps-without-evidence lead to belief.  To say that someone, for instance, believes that the earth is round because so much evidence warrants that conclusion is silly.  We know [not believe] the earth to be round[ish] and not flat.  So, I don't think a skeptic believes, I think a skeptic doubts in proportion to the quality of evidence available. Beliefs occur no matter what facts say.

CAND & CASS: Naturopathic Medicine Week is May 3-9

here, I cite from CAND first, then CASS regarding NMW:

001. the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors [CAND] states:

001.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine Week May 3-9" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) will be hanging up their lab coats [how sciencey!] during Naturopathic Medicine Week [NMW...happening] across Canada May 3-9 [...] to teach members of the community about natural medicine [...] and the benefits of  naturopathic medicine [...see] British Columbia Naturopathic Association, www.bcna.ca; Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, www.binm.org; Alberta Association of Naturopathic Practitioners, www.naturopathic-alberta.com; Saskatchewan Association of Naturopathic Practitioners, www.sanp.ca; Manitoba Naturopathic Association, www.mbnd.ca; Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors, www.oand.org; Nova Scotia Association of Naturopathic Doctors, www.nsand.ca."

Note: naturopathic, naturopathic, naturopathic.

 001.b. in  "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [etc....] the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB, coded vitalism] naturopathic treatments are chosen based on the individual patient – their physiological, structural, psychological, social, spiritual [supernaturalism], environment and lifestyle factors [...] natural therapies including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy [!!! etc....] the naturopathic medical profession’s infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing, national standards of practice, participation in many federal health committee initiatives, and a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research."

Note: so, we get the nonsense of the blended distinct, and we get coded vitalism which is business-as-usual, supernaturalism, homeopathy, and the label of professionalism and a supposed science committment.

001.c. in "What Can It Do For You?" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB] and to treat the root cause of disease."

Note: and that's all you are told.  Coded vitalism again.

001.d. in "History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"Hippocrates, a Greek physician who lived 2400 years ago, first formulated the concept of 'the healing power of nature' [HPN]. This concept has long been at the core of medicine around the world and remains one of the central principles of naturopathic medicine."

Note: codes, codes, codes.  Hijacking the Big H.

001.e. in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...a] set of principles emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [which] outlines the naturopathic approach to health and healing and forms the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...from #1] acknowledge and respect the individual's healing process [coded vitalism...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] this ordered and intelligent healing ability [coded vitalism]."

Note: so, the CAND's actual definition page for the principles of naturopathy veil naturopathy's actual vitalistic context in naturalistic language.  This is typical.

001.f. digging deeper, a global google.com search with the parameters  >cand.ca "vital force"< results in the CAND page "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2010-04-23] which states:

"homeopathic medicine [...a] powerful [!!!] system of medicine [...] when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's 'vital force' [vitalism] and to stimulate the body's innate healing forces [vitalistic healing...] traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture.  The key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy [vitalism]. The chi of all organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance."

Note: the same is roughly said here by CAND [vsc 2010-04-23].  Notice that the explanation of naturopathy's primary premise of HPN there does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential vitalistic science-ejected context.  But, from the above, we have vitalism as the core of naturopathy's homeopathy and naturopathy's acupuncture, two of naturopathy's flagship therapeutics, and overall that is the core of the 'naturopathic natural.'  

Here's naturopathy's central textbook all about that vitalistic context, if you have any doubts: "the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the
healing power of nature [p.034]."

Here is that concept on science's junk pile.   

Here is CAND talking up 'science, science, science' [vsc 2010-04-23].

 Here is CAND on Youtube with the label "science based natural medicine" [vsc 2008-04-06] overarching naturopathy.

002. the Center for Inquiry's Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism [CASS] states in "Center for Inquiry: Homeopathy Week a Skeptical Success":

"WHAW has gone [...] homeopathy is part of a scope of practice used by naturopaths, embracing a theory of 'vitalism' based upon an incorporeal spirit. Naturopathic Medicine Week will be celebrated May 3rd to 9th. CASS will be ready to confront more bad science [...] World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW), organized as a celebration of homeopathy, was successfully hijacked by the skeptical community and critical appraisals of homeopathy dominated the internet. CASS engages with scientific, technological and medical claims made in public discourse, addressing misinformation by promoting evidence-based science. CFI - which runs CASS - is a registered educational charity promoting science and secularism."

Note: I totally agree.  In sum, I'd characterize the vitalism of naturopathy, their often disguised healing context, as a belief in a 'purposeful life spirit.'  Now, if I really want to inflict big philosophical words on the reader I'd state it as an amalgam of: vitalism, spiritism, teleology and autoentheism.

Dana Ullman Recommends Naturopathy and Homeopathy, HP 2010-04-20:

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] article by absurdity/homeopathy proponent Dana Ullman [see 001., below]; then, I REALLY discuss naturopathy and homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001 Ullman, D. (MPH ?) states in "How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?":

"I have previously made clear that my own point of view on this subject is that we must develop a more 'integrative model' of medicine and healing and that we should utilize various naturopathic and homeopathic methods as a way to honor the Hippocratic tradition of 'first, do no harm.'"

Note: first, the "really" from the title. This is a really half-assed really but don't take my word on it: Orac does a quite thorough debunking of this fallacious tack. The criticisms against regular medicine are no more supportive of naturopathy and homeopathy [absurdities] as the criticisms against jet plane travel are no more supportive of using flying carpets [absurdity] instead [I borrow that from Dr. Atwood, 2004].  It's a false dichotomy to structure an argument as 'this or that' when the choices are by no means equal. 

Overall, knowing what I know about naturopathy and homeopathy, the "harm" that Ullman is likely concerned about relates to that hugely debunked sectarian figmentation known as 'the vital force.'  For instance, when the State of Oregon discusses "Naturopathy" and "do no harm," it states:

"[naturopathy's principle #3] first, do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful [teleological] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism] attempting to heal itself [...] the physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae [vital force...per principle #1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [...] healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleological]; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism...] therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes [what's primarily harming the VMN] are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized [...because] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [vitalism], respecting the intelligence [teleology] of the natural healing process."

Note: vitalism, teleology and that other naturopathic belief in 'spirit' that I'm not even discussing here are all external to science, as either science-ejected or fundamentally unsupportable by science.

002. really:

002.a. naturopathy:

is, clearly, the nonscientific [vitalistic, teleological, supernaturalistic] falsely labeled as scientific, violating the basic principles of commerce and the more stringent principles of professionalism [and you get the added value of the State of Oregon on that B.N.M. page falsely labeling the scientifically-ejected as 'able to surivive scientific scrutiny'].

002.b. homeopathy:

clearly doesn't work.

003. a note on integrative:

so, what is "integrative" really?  It is the lowering of standards to such an extreme that that which is profoundly, preponderantly nonscience is then labeled science and fraudulently traded upon.  This is what the State of Oregon endorses.  So,  I don't rely on Dana Ullman to inform me about what is "really." His rhetorical skills are quite formidable, but, when you peel back all that ornate manipulation, you get to the essentially sectarian-absurd that he [along with Oregon] is promoting.

Flexner At 100 By Way of Novella, Applied to Naturopathy By Me:

here, I cite from a recent post Dr. Novella put up at Neurologia regarding chiropractice [see 001., below]; then I alter it and apply it to naturopathy [see 002., below]:

001. Dr. Novella writes in "The Chiropractic Conundrum" (2010-04-20):

"2010 is the 100th anniversary of the Flexner Report – essentially an expose on poor scientific regulation of medical practices that led to a scientific revolution in mainstream medicine. Chiropractic is in major need of its own Flexner Report [...] they need to clean house if they want to become respected members of the evidence-based mainstream medical community [...] as Ernst writes – their failure to do so constitutes an ethical and public health issue."

Note: they'd have to limit themselves to certain back pain issues and likely drop that "Dr." status.  I doubt such will happen, but I'd never visit one myself.

002. let's turn Novella's statement into a statement about naturopathy by replacing the chiropractic with naturopathic, and adding some points I think are necessary:

"[this is now an alteration of Dr. Novella's original statement, please keep in mind, therefore NOT HIS OWN WORDS!] 2010 is the 100th anniversary of the Flexner Report – essentially an expose on poor scientific regulation of medical practices that led to a scientific revolution in mainstream medicine. Higher education, in general, is in major-need of another Flexner Report [...] complete crap posing as science has slithered into the State- and Federally-sanctioned, regionally-accredited institutional tier [...] for instance, take naturopathy [please!], whereby patently science-ejected premises are falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny. In such a Flexner-again process, naturopathy should cease to exist if justice is carried through, because the area is essentially an irrational and absurd, unethical sectarian pseudoscience that owes so much reparation to those it has victimized as educational consumers that naturopathy is essentially insolvent."

Sagan By Way of Singh, By Way of NECSS:

here, I muse on the relationship between science and skepticism:

001. recently, at the 2010 NECSS, JREF President Grothe had discussed the etymological root of the work skeptic, which basically is 'inquirer.'  I had stated two posts ago that 'science is a form of skepticism,' as in 'a particular form of inquiry.'  This blog is centered upon scientific inquiry into naturopathy. 

002. now, Simon Singh has won his libel issue with the British Chiropractic Association, and also has put up for free on the web the chapter from Trick or Treatment what deals with chiropractic. 

002.a. that book's page 180 quotes Carl Sagan:

"at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas [...] and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas [...] this is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."

Note: so, not to belabor the point yet to reiterate, science is a form of skepticism.  Naturopathy, though, is a form of absurdity, junk thought, and irrationality.  I engage in skeptical scrutiny here, and hopefully I'm ruthless enough.

A Nice Find -- UB Advirtising Naturopathy as a Science It Fundamentally Isn't, 2003:

here, I cite from a kind of commerce activity that results in people being harmed - false advertising circa 2003 by UB in Vegetarian Times in relation to its naturopathy program [see 001., below], and then I show the kind of nonsense UB falsely labels as science currently [see 002., below]:

001. the University of Bridgeport writes in "College of Naturopathic Medicine" (Vegetarian Times, 2003-02)[sc 2010-04-19]:

"a doctor of naturopathic medicine degree [...within the] University of Bridgeport, Division of Health Sciences [...which is within] a traditional university [p.078...] healthcare career plans [...] the chiropractic and naturopathic colleges at the University of Bridgeport are the country's first and only university-based colleges [p.081]."

Note: even in the mid-to-late 1990s, the 'typical university science' context was placed upon naturopathy by UB.

002. but, what do you really get?

002.a. well, right now you still get that label of science upon naturopathy [vsc 2010-04-19].

002.b. and, still, it is placed upon the essentially naturopathic science-ejected, e.g. see "life force" in:

LoBisco, S. (ND UBCNM) [vsc 2010-04-19].

My Impressions of NECSS 2010 & a Follow-Up With PMID14745386's Author:

here, I reflect on the 2010 NECSS, the people I met, and how that relates to naturopathy:

001. regarding the 2010 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism [NECSS]:

001.a. well, in brief, I found the entire day to be great. Proof-positive of my attendance:

And here's a blurry picture [apologies] of the "Science or Fiction" part of the SGU podcast from yesterday:

 The year before I didn't find much appealing about the afternoon part of NECSS, so I bailed early.  This year, Randi spoke last and the place stayed packed all day.  I've done the last two TAMs, and NECSS has really evolved quickly into something just as high-caliber.  I later did the 'speakers' dinner' and as chance would have it, I sat directly to the left of Dr. Kimball Atwood. Now, that was fortunate, because Naturocrit is a naturopathy skeptical blog, and Atwood wrote, for those who are not familiar, likely the most prominent journal-vetted criticism of naturopathy that I know of [per "the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of 'naturopathic medicine'"] AND THEN had some serious skeptic fun in answering the letters of righteous indignation that resulted from that criticism [see 001.b., below].

I'd hoped for the opportunity to ask Dr. A. one simple question, and I did get that chance: 

"regarding your critical analysis of naturopathy that was published in Medscape in 2003, have you had to retract anything you'd initially said in all the years that have transpired since its publication?"

Now, seven years have gone by since that article was published, and eight have gone by since I ceased the ND program at UB after four years of that cloud-cuckoo land and a few years prepping for that program's prerequisites.

Well, the answer to my question was short: "no."

Note: Atwood is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.  Yesterday, Grothe had talked about the continuity between skepticism and the scientific enterprise, and reminded the crowd that the root of the word skeptic is the Greek word for 'inquiry' ['σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about, to consider].  I would argue that science is a particular form of skepticism.

001.b. the Atwood items are titled:

001.b1. "Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal" [Medscape General Medicine, 2003;5(4)][here it is on Pubmed ] whose abstract, in part, reads:

"'naturopathic medicine is a recent manifestation of the field of naturopathy, a 19th-century health movement espousing 'the healing power of nature' [this is their science-ejected concept of vitalism, which I've collected]. 'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both 'conventional' and 'natural' medicine [NDs claim to be scientific overall]. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care [and it is irrational, since science and nonscience are equated, actually, in naturopathy -- and that is an absurd position for someone claiming physicianship]. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices [I completely agree]."

Note: so, lets be clear.  In the seven years since this article was published, naturopathy has not been in any manner CURBED while this 2003 article's author hasn't in any manner had to alter content that clearly lays out the evidence that naturopathy is hugely fraudulent [though Atwood doesn't use that specific term (the 'f' word), I shall do so here deliberately].  

Let me lengthen the lineage of this fraud because it encompasses my life from my early twenties onwards, back from when I was considering graduate school and reading through AANP literature in the1990s.  In 1997, the year before I started the UB ND program, I printed this document [archived here]:

which states that naturopathy is "science-based" and not a "belief-system."  The institutions responsible for the document were the AANP and its schools of that time.  Now, "science-based" and "pseudoscience" have particular meanings. It is quite clear that the essentially naturopathic is an essentially science-ejected sectarian belief system THEN falsely labeled as scientific and not belief.  If you are not what you say you are in commerce, we call that fraud and falsehood.  It is harmful, it is unjust, it is a form of institutional predation committed upon a trusting public. Naturopathy obviously does not meet the ethical standards of commerce: it is falsely labeled.  You do not get what you paid for because you get something else.  And meanwhile, naturopathy claims that something is what it is not.  Now, naturopathy also claims to meet the 'higher than commerce' standards of professionalism.  But, that cannot be possible if the lower standards of commerce cannot be met.  I started UB's ND program in 1998, and at that time naturopathy [I believe] knew what it truly is and that it was deceptively labeling itself for marketing purposes.   This has not changed.  Here, currently, is UB labeling naturopathy science while hugely based upon the science-ejected.  Here is an actual science book quite clearly stating that what is essentially 'the naturopathic' is bunk.

001.b2. and "Naturopathy, Pseudoscience and Medicine: Myths and Fallacies vs. Truth" [2004-03-24] [here it is on Pubmed]. Here is an excerpt:

"it is clear that my article raised a few hackles. I received more than 60 emails myself [...] the arguments were based on logical fallacies [...] denial [...and] ignorance [...but] not one opposing letter, however, offered an example of an inaccurate statement made in the article itself [(and that was about 7 years ago!)...] naturopaths' primary care claim is also refuted by the content of their training, which is replete with fanciful, antiscientific nonsense [...and also] there is no such thing as 'allopathic' medicine."

002. well, the fraud continues:

for me, the fraud goes with me to my grave as the student loans I've taken out for this graduate school nonsense continue and I was diverted from something else due to the absurdity known as naturopathy.  For the public at large, this fraud also continues because no matter what regulatory bodies I contact, nothing changes.  See, they're all liable for this: AANP and kind, the States that approve the schools, the Federal government that approves the accreditation body to oversee the schools, the regional accreditation bodies that approve the schools, the State ND boards, the individuals administrating this absurdity at institutions, the instructors who on a moment by moment basis prop up this nonsense.

Oh, so here's a microcosm of the whole thing: even after Atwood's expose, a new ND program started up in the AANP fold, National University of Health Science's ND program in Illinois.  It states in "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine":

"a rigorous curriculum [...a] scientific foundation [...per] the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...and within that] holistic philosophy and time tested principles [...to] promote the body’s natural healing process [...] the natural healing capacity of individuals [coded vitalism...and they love] homeopathy [...and this is] high quality naturopathic care [...and there are] rigorous professional board exams [...] the NPLEX exams which are a gateway to practice in states with licensure."

Now, homeopathy is complete bunk yet that NPLEX labels it "clinical science."  We have this claim of rigor and high quality but how can that be?  Naturopathy falsely labels the hugely-science-unsupported-for-decades "science."  That is not rigorous, it is cultic.  And we have the label of professional, but even on this supposed definitions page, they code their essential premise, the science-ejected principle of vitalism.

So, from page one, naturopathy obviously trains its proponents to deceive.